CAT/C/59/D/666/2015 the facts of the case, and that the complainant was attempting to engage the Court in an impermissible review of the merits. 4.8 On 2 December 2014, the complainant made a request for ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 48B of the Migration Act 1958. His claims were assessed in full and found not to meet the criteria for ministerial intervention. The decision maker did not consider that there was any new information or evidence to contradict the Tribunal’s findings. 4.9 The State party further submits that the complainant has raised new claims with the Committee, to the effect that since living in Australia, he has become easily identifiable as an ongoing supporter of the Tamil National Alliance candidate, S.Y. In addition, the complainant has submitted documents not previously provided to decision makers. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has assessed these documents and considers that they do not raise any new or credible claims that would alter the assessment that its non-refoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention would not be violated if the complainant were returned to Sri Lanka. Specifically, the photograph claimed to be of the complainant and the Member of Parliament, even if genuine, does not provide sufficient evidence to confirm or deny a relationship between them. As to the letter from the politician, the Department considers that it contains no new information or claims. The State party further notes that the existence of a general risk of violence does not constitute sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to that country, and submits that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence indicating that he would personally be at risk of torture or treatment that would be considered torture under article 1 of the Convention. 4.10 On 31 March 2016, the State party reiterated its previous observations and provided additional information outlining the comprehensive domestic processes, including merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal, judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court and a request to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to use his discretionary and non-compellable powers to intervene in favour of an unsuccessful visa application if the Minister considers it is in the public interest to do so. The State party submits that it has assessed the complainant’s claims, including through processes established under its Interim Measures Request Policy, and found that there is no new and credible information in the complainant’s submissions that engages its non-refoulement obligations, including under article 3 of the Convention. The State party requests that the Committee review its request for interim measures with a view to withdrawing it. Should it decide, after due consideration, not to do so, the State party requests the Committee to fast-track the present communication. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 21 August 2016, the complainant, through his counsel, challenged the State party’s observations that his submissions “generally cover the same material”. He disputes the State party’s submission that his allegations are inadmissible and without merit, and maintains that his involvement with the Tamil National Alliance, owing to his close family connections to S.Y., made him vulnerable to torture and prolonged periods of detention. He rejects the State party’s assertion that his claims for protection were assessed through “robust domestic processes”, and submits that neither the assessment made by the Minister’s delegate nor the review of this decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal provided an adequate assessment of the State party’s non-refoulement obligations, while the delegate’s finding that the complainant would not be identifiable as a failed returned asylum seeker is “absurd”. 5.2 The complainant notes that the Tribunal’s finding that it was not satisfied that he was a person of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities and thus did not meet the 5